Politics
Trump and Vance think anti-immigrant hate is good politics. They’re mistaken.
Over the weekend, Ohio senator and vice presidential nominee JD Vance made a stunning and unintentional admission: He’s a liar.
For more than a week, Vance, former President Donald Trump and many of their allies have spread falsehoods about the town of Springfield, Ohio, and its Haitian immigrant community. Most infamously, Trump last week repeated the now oft-debunked claim that Haitian migrants in the town are stealing and eating pet dogs and cats.
But on BLN, Vance gave away the GOP’s game. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” He claimed that the “American media” ignored the “problems in Springfield” associated with the impact of Haitian migration on public services in the town until “Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes.” Vance tried to explain away his verbal slip, but he couldn’t avoid the truth: “creating stories” is another way to say “making stuff up.”
Most insidious is the effect on the local Haitian community, which is increasingly under siege.
The consequences for such lies are both obvious and frightening. A steady stream of bomb threats has forced Springfield officials to temporarily shutter government offices, hospitals, elementary and middle schools, and two local colleges. On Monday, a local festival celebrating “diversity, arts and culture,” was also canceled — a fitting monument to Trump and Vance’s racist attacks.
Most insidious is the effect on the local Haitian communitywhich is increasingly under siege. As Vance’s rhetoric has made clear, his concern is not the Haitians’ immigration status: They are in America legally. Rather, the issue is their skin color and background of those moving to Springfield. As the vice presidential nominee argued on X this weekendthe real question about Springfield is, “Should we drop 20,000 people from a radically different culture in a small Ohio town in a matter of a few years?”
Never mind that, like so many immigrant communities before them, the Haitian community in Springfield has more than acclimated itself to their new homes. Their “positive influences” on the town have been noted by everyone from Springfield’s Republican mayor and local business leaders to Ohio’s Republican governor, who has decried the Trump/Vance-led attacks as “garbage.”
But would Vance make such proclamations if the 20,000 people were, say, from Norway? Would he make the same argument about urban gentrification and thousands of white yuppies moving into a predominately Black or Hispanic community?
When Vance claims that “what is happening in Springfield is coming to every town and city in this country if Kamala Harris’ open border policies are allowed to continue,” his intent is not difficult to discern. His incessant focus on “illegal immigration” and problems “at the border” is nothing more than a racist dog whistle to MAGA voters. And it’s one that minority communities have seen play out in America for centuries.
The last nine years of American politics have shown us that Trump and his minions only sing from one anti-immigrant hymnal.
It’s also quite purposeful. As Marc Caputo reported Sunday for the Bulwark, “Privately, Trump aides think it’s a net plus,” writes Caputo. “The longer the discussion is about migrants, the less it is about tougher topics for them. ‘We talk about abortion; we lose. We talk about immigration, we win,’ said one Trump adviser.”
“But what about the blowback from spreading an incendiary story for which there is no evidence?” Caputo asks. “‘We’ll take the hit to prove the bigger point,’” the adviser responds. NBC News reports that Trump is planning to visit Springfield “soon,” which surely will fan the flames even more.
Immigration is indeed an effective policy issue for Trump. In the most recent ABC/Ipsos pollhe polled 10 points better on it than Harris. But he also polls seven points better than his Democratic rival on the economy and inflation. Not only are those issues the top concerns for undecided votersbut they have the added benefit of not utilizing unabashedly racist sentiments. To side with Trump and Vance because of concerns over the economy is asking a heckuva lot less of voters than siding with them over naked immigrant bashing. The former doesn’t require a cleansing shower after wading in the political sewer.
The last nine years of American politics have shown us that Trump and his minions only sing from one anti-immigrant hymnal. Since 2016, immigrant-bashing has been the issue that most consistently unites GOP candidates — and it’s one that has taken on an even darker hue this cycle, with routine talk of immigrant “invasions” into the U.S.
There is, however, less evidence that it’s an effective political strategy. In 2018, Trump-supported candidates regularly used xenophobic attack lines in their campaigns. This was the election of “migrant caravans” and “bad hombres.” It didn’t work. Trump trotted out the usual dog whistles in 2020. So did Republican candidates in 2022. Neither led to political success. Maybe 2024 will be different, but the evidence is against xenophobic broadsides against immigrants as a route to political success.
In fact, the constant attacks on immigrants and the rising tensions in Springfield and around the country could be a net negative for Trump. The unending negativity that now defines the Trump campaign, the constant feeling of chaos and fatigue around the former president has a profound effect. The demagoguing over Springfield may energize MAGA world but, for the anti-Trump wing of the electorate, it’s a reminder of everything loathsome about the former president. Unfortunately, for Trump and now Vance, shame has always been an emotion in short supply, so there’s little reason to expect the racist, immigration bashing to stop. There’s also not much reason to think it’ll work.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a Senior Fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
Brazil has won a record five World Cups, but the most important match it has ever played may have been an exhibition match against Haiti that was meaningless in sporting terms but has had a long influence on each country’s politics.
On Aug. 18, 2004, Brazil’s players drove through the streets of Port-au-Prince in armored personnel carriers, World Cup champions greeted like liberators. Two months earlier, Brazil’s military had arrived to lead a multinational peacekeeping force established by the United Nations following a bloody coup d’état.
“We’ve only seen such joy in the eyes, the exuberance of the eyes, when we paraded in Brazil after winning the World Cup,” coach Carlos Alberto Parreira said afterwards. “I will never forget this moment.”
The team was accompanied to the U.N.-hosted friendly match that followed — “They play, peace wins,” went the slogan — by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then in his first term as Brazil’s president. More than two decades later, Lula is back in office, now cemented as the most accomplished leader the world’s left has seen in the 21st century. His approach to foreign policy, say observers, was shaped partially on the soccer pitch that day in Port-au-Prince.
“It showed he was trying something different as a diplomatic tool,” said Mauricio Savarese, an Associated press political reporter in São Paulo who has researched the legacy of the 2004 game. “That match at the time was a symbol of Brazil’s soft power. You really showed how Brazil could win hearts and minds with a policy that was not exactly bowing to the United States or to the China or to Russia, but independent.”
The match, designed to build goodwill between a shell-shocked population and its benevolent occupiers, began after players from the two national teams unfurled a pre-match banner that read “Social Justice is the True Name of Peace.” The peacekeeping mission represented an early commitment to “continental solidarity,” as Lula defined it in a speech the following year to up-and-coming diplomats where he cited the Haiti mission as an example of “non-indifference.”
Lula was feeling his way toward a foreign policy centered around South-South Cooperation and the BRICS alliance of emerging markets. Lula has used that role as de-facto leader of the democratic developing world to, with mixed results, position Brazil as a leader on climate change — it hosted last year’s COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém — and a mediator when thorny international conflicts arise. It has a position of official neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war, so as to serve a potential role as mediator, as it did when partnering with Turkey in 2010 to broker a nuclear-fuel swap with Iran.
That same year, an earthquake hit Haiti, killing over 100,000 people while injuring and displacing millions more. It also destroyed the headquarters of the U.N. Stabilisation Mission in Haiti, even as Brazil led a post-disaster humanitarian relief effort. The experience further deepened ties between the two countries, as Brazil introduced a humanitarian-visa program for the first time to welcome Haitians fleeing the devastation; it has since been extended to Syrian war refugees, as well. One historically Italian neighborhood in São Paulo is now known as Little Haiti.
The broader peacekeeping mission began to resemble a military quagmire in humanitarian garb: Brazilian troops were blamed for human-rights violations and a cholera epidemic, while doing little to improve the overall security situation. For Lula and his protegée Dilma Rousseff, the Haiti project became a political liability, in both Haiti and Brazil.
As the two nations prepare to face off against one another in Philadelphia on Friday, Lula is not expected to be in attendance. Instead his travel schedule this week was built around the G7 summit in France, in which Brazil participated as one of five “partner countries” — a reflection of its increased global standing over the past few decades. If Lula shows up at one of Brazil’s matches later in the World Cup, it will likely be with a domestic audience in mind rather than a foreign one: he is in the midst of a reelection campaign for his fourth term, against a son of his longtime antagonist Jair Bolsonaro.
“I doubt that anyone is going to vote for him just because he’s recognized abroad as a key leader,” said Savarese, Brazilian political journalist who wrote the book “Dilma’s Downfall.” “But of course that helps with some moderates, which are a very thin part of Brazil’s electorate, and they’re going to be decisive in October’s election, that is also one of the things that tips the balance in his favor, as is being seen as this pragmatic leader who can also be respected even when he’s speaking about issues that clearly don’t affect as much in Brazil’s daily life.”
That day in Haiti, not yet a global figure, Lula confronted one limit on his power. He reportedly asked his team not to score too many goals, in the interests of goodwill. The players did not oblige, winning 6-0, including an astonishing solo effort from Ronaldinho.
Blue Light News has been crunching the numbers to see how all 48 of this year’s World Cup participants rank in several other off-field categories, which we’ll share more of over the weekend.
In today’s item, we look at whether GDP per capita has any connection to soccer performance. As you can see, the chart does show some positive correlation — note, for example, wealthy tournament contenders such as France, the Netherlands and Germany all in the upper right corner.
But it’s not a perfect indicator. By this metric, Qatar is the wealthiest country in the tournament — and it lost 6-0 to Canada on Thursday …
CANBERRA — It was disappointment from start to finish around the USA vs. Australia match in the Bush Capital, won comfortably by the American side.
Neither of Canberra’s Socceroos made the starting lineup and the local government failed to provide an outdoor watch site for the match, despite a heavy social media campaign from locals. With federal politicians out of town and back in their districts this week, the campaign lacked star power and fell on deaf ears.
That left thousands to fill inner city pubs and the University of Canberra, which were allowed special trading hours for the match, from 4.30 a.m.
Australia’s politicians — vocal in their support in the lead-up to the match — went silent quickly, after Australia’s own goal 11 minutes minutes into the game.
If the Aussies’ lackluster performance left the crowd subdued, they found energy to boo Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a notably unpopular figure in Australia, which embraced harsh Covid lockdowns and vaccines — when he appeared on the match broadcast.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words